You mean like this?…

hrun: "So what if they burn down labs or murder people?"

The anonymous letter in the magazine warned the donor companies that if they failed to comply they "will have their offices trashed and the homes of their directors, employees and/or trustees will be attacked" and "their details will be sent out over the internet to other animal rights activists".

JM, a specialist chemicals company, is among 100 firms listed on a website run by Speak, an organisation campaigning against the new laboratory.

It is believed that ALF has taken the names and addresses of benefactors from this list.

A spokesman for JM said: "We always take issues of security seriously. Because of the nature of our business it is extremely important to us."

But the spokesman refused to comment on whether the firm, based in Orchard Road, had been contacted by the animal rights extremists or whether the company would be increasing security in response to the threats and recent action against another benefactor.

A police spokeswoman said: "We cannot talk specifically about our arrangements with specific companies but we do liaise closely with companies that could be a target for animal rights protesters and agree protocols and plans with them."

The week-long deadline set by ALF has passed, with several named companies pledging to pull their funding for the university.

Note carefully that "several named companies" have now pledged "to pull their funding for the university."

I wonder if hrun can tell us what university has lost funding because of some campaign run by the DI.

"This is like disparaging people who work at animal shelters because they are not willing to volunteer in hospitals, orphanages and hospice facilities."

The problem with your analogy is that when people choose to work in animals shelters or to volunter in hospitals, we know that their choices are just based on their personal preferences. But Dawkins is posing as the Defender of Science, acting as if he's only concerned about the future of science. Admitting that the target of his attacks was just an expression of his personal preferences would deflate his rhetoric.

Or, asked differently, why should Dawkins fight against "˜animal rights terrorists' over "˜IDists'?

Why think in terms of either/or? I would not suggest that Dawkins should speak out against the animal rights terrorists instead of the IDists. What's wrong with speaking out against the animal rights terrorists in addition to speaking out against the IDists?

Dawkins's own university has been fire-bombed. His friends and students at Oxford have been targeted and threatened. Why can't he simply speak up and throw his public support behind his own school, colleagues, and students? Why not publicly praise the 16-year-old boy who is standing up for science?

Look, there are many scientists out there who are afraid to speak out because they don't want to become targeted because of their research. But Dawkins doesn't do research. He has the media's attention. He has the reputation for addressing controversial issues. In fact, he even has some level of influence among the animal rights extremists, as much of their value system is built around his teachings about "˜specieism.' He is a unique position to make a powerful impact on this debate. In addition to promoting the "Brights" and attacking Bush and religion, why can't he just speak out in favor of biological research?

The fact that there are worse threats does not lead to the conclusion that ID is not a threat or that Dawkins is insincere in his effort do defend science.

hrun is absolutely right.

Concepts like ID are a threat to the existing reductionistic mechanistic "modern evolutionary synthesis" and its correlary of a purposeless cosmos and ateleological evolutionary history, and people like Dawkins are right to focus on this existential challenge to their deeply-held metaphysic.

There's something odd that happends sometimes where people who seem to make the most grandiose efforts to fight their 'enemy' (who or what ever that might be) end up serving as a perfect example of the enemy whom they are supposed to be fighting.

The fact of the matter is for Dawkins et. al. it's atheism first, science second. That is why they hate ID so much. In their gut they know that the modern synthesis just doesn't quite make sense, and they deeply hate and fear the implications of a science that points at teleology in the cosmos.

Yes, just like those fake do-gooders who volunteer at animal shelters, but pass by homeless people. Or the folks who spend money on music ed for poor kids, while ignoring starvation in Africa. Step up. Help for real, and not with your faux litte causes that aren't nearly as important as the real problems Guts decides you should work on.

Hrun, you aren't addressing the issue nor answering my questions. Science is actually being stopped , scientists are getting death threats, in Dawkins own home. This is not some vague , future prediction that if some concept across the seas gains favor that science will somehow someway stop working. Science is actually, right now, being stopped. Someone in his position as the "Professor for the public understanding of science" has the responsibility to speak out against this as others are doing in his own school. He has the responsibility to speak out and defend science and scientific research, if thats truely what he wants to do. The fact that he, and others, ignore this, but are lashing out against Intelligent Design and religion on an almost daily basis, points to a hidden agenda. How does it make sense to lash out at people who are not stopping science, preventing the construction of labs, murding people, issuing death threats but ignore the people who are? There is a reason for this.

So what you're saying is that Dawkins' perception of ID as a threat to science is just his personal opinion? I already knew that.

Krauze, what I am saying is that everybody prioritizes their world according to their perception. Obviously, to you (and others here) ID is less of a threat to science than, let's say, these 'animal rights terrorists'. To Dawkins, apparently, this is not a fight he wants to dedicate his time to. Who cares. This is like disparaging people who work at animal shelters because they are not willing to volunteer in hospitals, orphanages and hospice facilities.

The fact that there are worse threats does not lead to the conclusion that ID is not a threat or that Dawkins is insincere in his effort do defend science.

If you were able to actually show that Dawkins is unwilling to defend science (i.e. if he were opposed to fighting 'animal rights terrorists') you might have a case. Or if you could show that Dawkins is fighting ID, not because it is a threat to science, but for other reasons, again, you'd have a case.

People who say they are "pro-science" should step up to the plate and start living up to their name if they are to be taken seriously.

Yes, just like those fake do-gooders who volunteer at animal shelters, but pass by homeless people. Or the folks who spend money on music ed for poor kids, while ignoring starvation in Africa. Step up. Help for real, and not with your faux litte causes that aren't nearly as important as the real problems Guts decides you should work on.

"I mean, dude, those people quote scientists out of context!"

I dream of the day that scientists aren't quoted out of context. A day where common folks - like you and me - can break into laboratories and destroy years and years of research.